HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 10-21-1997 - 11a 1
ORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: October 21, 1997
Action Agenda
Item # /#-!q
SUBJECT: Report on Cane Creek Watershed Study
DEPARTMENT: Planning PUBLIC HEARING:_Yes X No
BUDGET AMENDMENT REQUIRED: Yes—X–No
ATTACHMENT(S): INFORMATION CONTACT:
Cane Creek Watershed Study(Separate enclosure) Mary Willis
Excerpt from 1997-98 Commissioners Goals Extension 2583
OWASA Resolution TELEPHONE NUMBERS:
Executive Summary Hillsborough- 732-8181
Correspondence Durham -688-7331
Mebane -227-2031
Chapel Hill -967-9251
PURPOSE: To receive a report on the results of the Cane Creek Watershed Study.
BACKGROUND: The Commissioners Goals adopted for FY 1997-98 include Implementation
of the Cane Creek Watershed Study prepared for the Orange Water and
Sewer Authority. Adopted Milestones for accomplishing this goal include
an initial informational report to the Board of Commissioners (September,
1997 in attached Plan of Action), followed by the preparation of a staff
report on the impact of the Study and draft implementation proposals
(October-November, 1997 in attached Plan of Action).
The purpose of this agenda item is to present the initial report on the Cane
Creek Watershed Study. The Report will be presented by a representative
of the Orange Water and Sewer Authority.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive as information
C� a,
93 00
oll ON
00 00
CN
ocs
U 0 i u = i L >' = oL
Z A
cn
w
z
0
F
cn
pw
w
a
0
a
w
w
R ::::
Er 7 E••�
'xm!
O
O
J
U
a
as ...::.::...........
o s
CD
cn
H
O
i
rr
O R
LL
V
•Z •
...... :.::::::
o �
a
U
�-+ a
:
0
C
Ow R ::.:....,.::.:. :.........
u U ,
w cn G a `°
CD
G
� 4 �
C)
cc
LL �.
~ u D N C O
� ¢ v H R O
LLI
ui O a 3
� ai ,Q U •'� � a c �
0 LI G.
2L 0
•E �, " .. a E o
r w Q E C E N Q u
Su E v
c c
CL
AR c > •v E
d my � E g E �° oC 0 o
00 0
Orange Water and Sewer Authority 3
OWASA 400 Jones Ferry Road
P.O. Box 366
Carrboro, NC 27510
(919) 968-4421
Provisional Recommendations for Protecting the Cane
Creek Water Supply
June 26, 1997
Introduction and Background
Orange Water and Sewer Authority (OWASA)owns and operates the Cane Creek Reservoir as
one of two principle water supplies for the Towns of Carrboro and Chapel Hill, the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, UNC Hospitals, and portions of Orange County. The reservoir
cost$20 million to build and was filled in 1989. Cane Creek is expected to provide water to the
community through the twenty-first century.
In January 1994 the OWASA Board of Directors appointed a 22-member Watershed Advisory
Committee to guide the Board in developing a management plan for ensuring the long term
quality of the Cane Creek Reservoir. The Committee's charge included assistance to staff and
Board in developing the scope of work for a consultant study; interaction with staff and
consultants during the study; and finally, advising the Board on a preferred water supply
protection strategy. The Committee was composed of a range of stakeholders, including
property owners and watershed residents, water customers from Carrboro and Chapel Hill,
professional experts from the University, elected officials from each governing jurisdiction, and
OWASA Board members. A complete list of Committee members is attached as Appendix A.
In October 1994 the Board approved Committee-drafted goals, objectives, and a scope of work,
and in June 1995 awarded a consulting contract to the Cadmus Group, Inc. Cadmus worked
closely with the Committee and OWASA staff reviewing data, developing,refining, and
modeling alternative management scenarios, and in August 1996 presented results in the Cane
Creek Reservoir Watershed Study-Draft Report.
Findings indicated that future water quality objectives could be met through four different
approaches that relied on varying degrees of open space preservation, large lot zoning, cluster
development,regional stormwater ponds, and tributary subimpoundments. Each of the options
theoretically offered the same water quality outcome, but differed substantially in its impact on
watershed property owners,cost to OWASA ratepayers, uncertainty of meeting predicted results,
and potential for unintended or irreversible results.
The Committee and the OWASA Board agreed to solicit additional community input before
recommending a single preferred strategy. Accordingly, the Cadmus report was circulated to
local elected officials, staff, and interested citizens; highlighted in newspaper articles; and
An Equal Opportunity Employer
Provisional Cane Creek Recommendations 4
June 26, 1997
Page 2
presented at three public meetings, including one in Bingham Township in the watershed.
Verbal and written comments were received from nearly 50 individuals. These were compiled
by OWASA staff and reviewed by the Watershed Advisory Committee in March and April 1997.
An additional management scenario emerged from this process and was evaluated by Tetra Tech,
Inc. (successor contractors to the Cadmus Group) for compliance with previously established
water quality goals.
These provisional recommendations by the OWASA Board are based on these efforts, which
lasted nearly three and a half years.
Guiding Principles
Long-standing water supply principles emphasize the importance of high quality source water.
OWASA's own Water Supply Protection Policy expresses a commitment to high quality drinking
water through a combination of source water protection and treatment technology.
The overall goal developed by the Watershed Advisory Committee and adopted by the OWASA
Board was to manage the Cane Creek Reservoir to meet or exceed all applicable state and
federal standards and to ensure its excellent water quality and long term viability as a public
water supply source. This goal was characterized by four water quality and two non-water
quality objectives. The most important was minimizing risks to public health, but of the
non-water quality objectives,both the Committee and Board considered minimizing impacts on
County residents who are not OWASA customers to be more important than minimizing rate
increases to OWASA customers, and nearly as important as the public health objective. These
objectives established benchmarks against which alternative management scenarios were
evaluated and measured by Cadmus.
Additional principles and core values that underlie the recommendations presented in this report
are noted below. Virtually all are related to the long period of time during which Cane Creek is
expected to serve the community.
• The Cane Creek Reservoir is a valuable resource in which the people of Carrboro and
Chapel Hill have invested more than 20 million dollars. It is essential to protect this
investment for the next 100 years or more.
• OWASA and other water providers are responsible for making decisions today and for
managing resources for a future too distant to see with clarity. Sound management
requires making these decisions with care and caution in order to sustain as many options
as possible for future generations.
• Water quality problems typically develop over periods of years or decades and may
require years or decades to resolve. Even though Cane Creek water quality is in
compliance with current State and federal standards, actions are needed today in advance
of environmental and regulatory conditions of tomorrow. Important lessons exist in the
5
Provisional Cane Creek Recommendations
June 26, 1997
Page 3
pro-active water supply protection decisions made more than a century ago by cities such
as New York, Boston, Portland, Oregon, and Portland, Maine.
• As a water supplier, OWASA acknowledges a preference for non-structural protection
strategies. Open space preservation and land use management through acquisition,
zoning, and development controls is a practice with widespread support in the water
industry and is preferable to technological methods, such as stormwater detention,
tributary subimpoundments,and other engineered solutions, with unproven or
inconsistent performance records.
(Comment: It is noted that this institutional preference, which somewhat conflicts with
efforts to minimize effects on watershed residents,was not shared unanimously by the
Cane Creek Watershed Advisory Committee.)
• Community input, stakeholder equity, and effective partnerships are essential. OWASA
is committed to applying to Cane Creek the valuable technical and political experience
gained during the 1989-91 University Lake protection efforts.
Present Water Quality
Water quality in Cane Creek is generally good and in compliance with applicable regulatory
standards, but it is not pristine. As in University Lake and other Piedmont reservoirs, Cane
Creek is enriched by nutrients that contribute to a range of conditions that may compromise both
public health and aesthetic objectives.
Cadmus conducted an in-depth review of current management practices and conservation plans
for the five active dairy farms in the watershed. Findings and predictive analyses revealed a high
degree of compliance with recommended agricultural practices for cropland,pastureland, and
animal waste management. Inspection of recent and ongoing pesticides data from the reservoir
and tributaries revealed occasional traces of agricultural herbicides. On the few occasions when
these were detected in the reservoir itself,they were at levels more than 10 times lower than
pesticide standards for treated drinking water.
Modeling analyses indicate that development regulations and practices currently in place are not
sufficient to prevent future deterioration from new development.
Overall findings and management options are summarized below. Details are available in the
August 1996 Cadmus report.
Major Findings:
• Existing water quality is acceptable,but not pristine.
Provisional Cane Creek Recommendations 6
June 26, 1997
Page 4
• The most-significant water quality problems are associated with nutrients and algal
blooms. Cadmus characterized these as representing a high risk to attaining the Cane
Creek objectives.
• Low levels of dissolved oxygen in bottom waters during the summer months increase the
concentration of naturally occurring iron and manganese, which create taste and staining
problems unless removed at the treatment plant. Other compounds associated with high
nutrient and low dissolved oxygen conditions can also cause objectionable tastes and
odors in the treated water. These conditions are considered to be a high risk to attaining
the aesthetic water quality objectives for Cane Creek.
• Total organic carbon(TOC)concentrations, an indicator of potentially harmful
disinfection by-products formed during chlorination, are similarly considered to be a high
risk condition. Cadmus' modeling indicated that TOC levels are not likely to change,
regardless of management strategy.
• Based on current knowledge and monitoring data, there appears to be little risk from
chemical pesticides and synthetic organic chemicals (SOCs).
• Risks from microbial pathogens, such as Giardia and Cryptosporidium, are in the low to
moderate range and are expected to remain low if animal waste practices and OWASA's
treatment plant operation are sustained at their current, high levels of performance.
• Sediment delivery to the reservoir reflects generally good land management practices and
is within an acceptable range. Sedimentation is not expected to reduce water storage
capacity if accumulation rates remain in the present range.
• Cane Creek's fish population is acceptable, but could be improved through independent
fishery management programs.
• Aquatic weeds are not a current problem, but continued oversight is needed.
Management Options:
No single management option can meet all of the objectives; therefore, a combination of methods
is needed:
• Modifications to the Orange County Zoning Ordinance Orange County's watershed
protection requirements are among the most stringent in North Carolina, but certain
modifications are needed to manage degradation due to future development.
• Further evaluation of tributary detention by OWASA.
7
Provisional Cane Creek Recommendations
June 26, 1997
Page 5
Additional steps recommended include:
• OWASA acquisition of nearly 1300 additional acres of critical land to help prevent future
contamination.
• Modification of the Cane Creek water intake structure to allow selective withdrawal of
higher quality water.
• Further evaluation of cost-effective water treatment options, such as pre-oxidation with
chlorine dioxide,that may reduce the production of disinfection byproducts.
• Discussion with Alamance County officials their consideration of re-zoning the
Alamance portion of the watershed.
Some options have been eliminated from further consideration:
• In-lake management techniques, such as mechanical de-stratification, bottom water
aeration, alum-copper sulfate application, or biomanipulation, are not recommended.
State and Local Water Sup&Protection
The North Carolina Environmental Management Commission(EMC)requires local counties and
municipalities to enact baseline land use regulations for water supply watersheds within their
jurisdiction. Communities may adopt stricter standards if desired.
Both Alamance and Orange Counties are in compliance with EMC regulations for the Cane
Creek watershed. The one-acre minimum lot size required by Alamance County complies with
the EMC's basic standard. By contrast, Orange County's water supply requirements are among
the most stringent in the state. These are codified in Article 6.23,Extra Requirements for
Watershed Protection Overlay Districts, of the Orange County Zoning Ordinance. Highlights
include:
• A maximum allowable density of 1 dwelling unit per 2 acres throughout the watershed.
Impervious surfaces are generally limited to 6 percent. Non-residential development is
limited to 12 percent imperviousness,but no more than 139 of the 18,500+Orange
County acres in the watershed may be developed for non-residential purposes.
• Preference for non-structural stormwater controls that rely on buffers,natural vegetation,
and infiltration. Structural controls, such as detention ponds, are allowed, but may not be
used to qualify for density or impervious surface waivers. Any such devices are subject
to strict performance requirements, including the posting of maintenance agreements,
security bonds, and cash deposits.
8 ,
Provisional Cane Creek Recommendations
June 26, 1997
Page 6
• Buffer requirements are in place for the reservoir shoreline and along all perennial and
intermittent streams. Buffers must remain in natural vegetation and may only be used
for a limited set of restricted activities.
• Clustering of residential lots is allowed throughout the watershed with no prescriptive
minimum lot size. Additionally, Orange County promotes its innovative Flexible
Development Standards for Preserving Rural Character.
• Water supply and wastewater systems are limited to individual wells and on-site septic
systems. Neither community water nor wastewater systems are allowed in the
watershed.
Adequacy of Existing Programs
The Cadmus Group used Cane Creek field data to customize and calibrate water quality models
to predict the results of future development and management scenarios. Water quality is
predicted to deteriorate substantially as residential development exceeds 25 percent buildout.
The reservoir already exhibits nuisance algae that cause taste and odor problems in treated
water. These are often dominated by species that release harmful toxins under more extreme
conditions. Algal blooms are predicted to quadruple in frequency,to more than 30 percent of
the summer months, as development approaches 100 percent buildout.
Significantly, such a degree of degradation is predicted to result from future activities that
comply with current regulations. As noted, Cadmus determined that these conditions could be
avoided through different combinations of open space preservation, land acquisition, large lot
zoning, cluster development, regional stormwater ponds, and tributary subimpoundments.
The recommendations presented below are the cumulative result of these technical analyses,
community input, and Committee discussion. They attempt to provide a balance between water
quality and stakeholder equity objectives outlined earlier. (Please see the Executive Summary
of the August, 1996 Cadmus Report attached as Appendix B.)
Recommended Changes to Local Regulations
The Committee's primary regulatory recommendation is to amend the Orange County
Zoning Ordinance such that all new residential development in the Cane Creek watershed
occurs either on large lots or in prescribed cluster configurations.
Large Lots
Under the recommended requirement,minimum lot sizes in the Cane Creek watershed would be
the same as currently specified for University Lake; that is, 5-acre minimum, except for parcels
recorded as of June 26, 1997, which could first be subdivided into as many as five 2-acre lots.
Any additional lots created from the parent tract would have to be at least 5 acres.
Provisional Cane Creek Recommendations 9
June 26, 1997
Page 7
Existing parcels of less than 12 acres would be unaffected by the proposed rezoning, because
they could be subdivided into five 2-acre tracts, which is consistent with current provisions.
(Comment: Nearly 75 percent of the 1300 existing parcels in the Orange County portion of the
watershed are less than or equal to 12 acres in size. These properties, which constitute about 20
percent of the watershed area,would not be affected by the new large lot requirements.)
Creative Open Space Desigg (Clustering)
As an alternative to mandatory large-lot development,property owners could choose a more
flexible approach by locating dwelling units on smaller lots and reserving a portion of the tract as
permanent open space. Existing forested or agricultural land could remain in those uses as part
or all of the designated open space.
It is recommended that such development continue to be promoted under Orange County's
Flexible Development Standards with a required open space reservation of 50 percent, allowable
density of 2 acres per dwelling unit(based on total tract size and subject to suitability for septic
systems), and a minimum actual lot size of 1 acre. Development opportunities on a hypothetical
55-acre parcel are illustrated for existing 2-acre zoning and compared to large lot and open space
options in Figures 1 through 3 below.
Although the availability of central water or sewer utilities is recognized as an important factor in the
viability of clustering, there is substantial concern about the reliability of subsurface and spray irrigation
wastewater technology. At this time OWASA does not recommend these methods be allowed for
community scale applications in the Cane Creek watershed, even if operated and maintained by
OWASA. OWASA may choose to revisit this issue sometime in the future through an open, public
process.
Figure 1. Existing Zoning Figure 2. Large Lots Figure 3. Creative Open Space
+
• 55-acre parcel •55-acre parcel • 55-acre parcel
• 5 acres roads& •5 acres roads& • 5 acres roads&
infrastructure infrastructure infrastructure
• 25 two-acre lots •5 two-acre lots • 25 one-acre lots
•8 five-acre lots • 25 acres open space
preserved
Provisional Cane Creek Recommendations 10
June 26, 1997 '
Page 8
Other Development Requirements
Other land use and development requirements, such as impervious surface limits, permissible
uses, and so forth, would remain as currently specified in Orange County's Zoning Ordinance.
Potential Town and Country Tradeoffs
It is important that the OWASA Board and elected leaders who influence or implement these
changes recognize the long-standing sovereignty issue perceived by many watershed property
owners.
Bingham Township residents consider OWASA's source water protection initiative an additional
burden imposed on the rural community by the demands of urban growth in Carrboro and Chapel
Hill. Watershed residents,who have no access to OWASA water,will realize no water quality
benefits from the sacrifices they must make. The OWASA Board recognizes this view and is
sensitive to it. We remain open to considering a range of flexible actions that might offset the
perceived loss of rural sovereignty:
• Payments-in-lieu for unrealized volunteer fire district taxes that would otherwise be
levied on land owned by OWASA in Bingham Township. These are currently estimated
to be in the range of$4,000 to$5,000 per year.
• Use of OWASA's Cane Creek recreational site and former Stanford house as a
County-operated park and nature interpretive center. OWASA would retain control of
any water-based activities.
(Comment: Orange County's Public Recreation Master Plan identifies the need for a
future district park in Bingham Township. Portions of this proposal may qualify for state
and federal grant programs. OWASA has made overtures in this direction in the past.)
• Sale, trade,or transfer of non-watershed land owned by OWASA in Bingham Township
to the Orange County Board of Education for use as a new school site if such a
transaction were sought by those with appropriate decision-making authority.
• Accelerated or"front-loaded" funding of OWASA's program for purchasing critical land
and conservation easements in the watershed, including the set-asise of up to one-third of
budgeted land acquisition funds ($150,000 of$450,000 in FY 98) for easement
purchases.
Provisional Cane Creek Recommendations 11
June 26, 1997
Page 9
Other Recommendations
• Seek rezoning of the Alamance County portion of the watershed, which is currently
designated for 1-acre residential development,to be consistent with Orange County
zoning.
• Seek consideration by Carrboro, Chapel Hill, and Orange County for Transfer of
Development Rights(TDR)opportunities for Cane Creek property owners. With
appropriate enabling legislation,these jurisdictions could establish higher density
"receiving areas" in which developers could exercise development rights (density
bonuses)purchased directly from property owners in the watershed. OWASA and its
customers would benefit from decreased density in the watershed; Cane Creek property
owners would benefit from TDR payments in return for additional (voluntary)
development restrictions; and in-town developers would benefit through density bonuses
in designated areas. All transactions would remain in the private sector.
Recommended OWASA Actions
Large-lot zoning and open space development alone will not achieve future water quality goals,
but must be supported by additional open space acquisition by OWASA, as well as possible
construction and operation of a tributary subimpoundment(mini-lake) on Caterpillar or Tom's
Creek. The need for such a facility will depend in part on future development activities,
specifically the amount of open space development that takes place in coming years, and the
actual size of newly subdivided lots.'
Land Acquisition: OWASA will need to purchase approximately 1,260 acres of land in addition
to the 1,600 acres already owned in the watershed to meet future water quality goals. Based on
current land prices, the total cost would be more than$6 million (1997 dollars).
To achieve these land acquisition goals, OWASA will:
• Allocate sufficient funds over the next five years to proceed pro-actively toward
protecting critical land in the watershed.
• Seek grant funds from the newly established North Carolina Clean Water Management
Trust Fund.
• Consider establishing a controlled sell-back program through which land purchased in fee
simple is returned to the private market with permanent conservation easements attached.
Tributary Subimpoundment: Depending on the degree of cluster type development that
occurs and the actual size of new subdivision lots, it may also be necessary for OWASA to create
a 20 to 40-acre subimpoundment(mini-lake)near the mouth of Caterpillar or Tom's Creek.
Provisional Cane Creek Recommendations 12
June 26, 1997
Page 10
Construction costs are difficult to estimate without a preliminary engineering study, but would
likely be in the 2 to 4 million dollar range.
Further evaluation of tributary subimpoundments will require:
• A preliminary engineering study to determine the general feasibility and cost estimates
for a mini-lake at either the Caterpillar or Tom's Creek sites.
• Monitoring land development and water quality trends that may determine the eventual
need for a subimpoundment.
Overall Implementation Plan
As these recommendations are acted upon by OWASA, Orange County, and other local
governments, it is recommended that the overall findings and management strategy be
incorporated into a formal Implementation Plan. This would specify time tables and
responsibilities for action,ongoing data collection,and a process for periodic Plan reviews and
updates.
13
Appendix-A: Cane Creek Watershed Advisory Committee
Watershed Residents
Ms. Patricia Crawford,Watershed Resident and Property Owner
Ms. Dolly Hunter,Watershed Resident and Property Owner, Developer
Mr. Robert Nutter, Dairyman,University Lake Watershed
Mr. Dan Snipes, Dairyman, Cane Creek Watershed
Interested Citizens
Mr. Chris"Hogan,Former Dairyman, Chapel Hill (*)
Ms. Margaret Brown, Orange County,Protect Our Water
Mr. Braxton Foushee, Carrboro (*)
Ms. Lois Herring, Orange County,League of Women Voters
Ms.Nancy Mueller, Orange County, League of Women Voters
Mr. Allen Spalt,Carrboro,Agricultural Resources Center, Protect Our Water(*)
Professional Experts
Dr. Deborah Amaral,UNC Department of Environmental Sciences&Engineering, Cane Creek
Resident
Dr. Francis DiGiano,UNC Department of Environmental Sciences &Engineering (*)
Dr. David Godschalk,UNC Department of City and Regional Planning (*)
Dr. Daniel Okun, Professor Emeritus,UNC Department of Environmental Sciences& Engineering
Ms. Elin Ferrell, District Conservationist,USDA Soil Conservation Service
Elected Officials
Mr. Randy Marshall, Carrboro Board of Aldermen(*)
Ms. Jacqueline Gist, Carrboro Board of Aldermen(*)
Ms. Julianne Andresen,Chapel Hill Town Council (*)
Dr. Donald Willhoit, Orange County Board of Commissioners (*)
OWASA Board Members
Mr. Patrick Davis, Chapel Hill(*)
Mr. Frank Hammill, Carrboro(*)
Mr. Alan Rimer, Chapel Hill(*)
(*) Indicates OWASA water user
AD-pendix B. .
The Cadmus Group, Inc. 14
Cane Creek Reservoir
Watershed Study—Draft Report
Executive Summary
August 1996
�1
Turkey 1
Hill Creek
Cane Creek
Toms Creek
Nearshore
fWate Fork
Caterpillar Creek
n
Cane Creek Reservoir
1.920 Highway 54, Executive Park, Suite 1.00 Durham, NC 27713
15
Cane Creek Reservoir
Watershed Study—Draft Report
Executive Summary
Prepared for
The Orange Water and Sewer Authority
Prepared by
Jonathan Butcher
Trevor Clements
Kimberly Brewer
Arthur Werner
David Korn
Jennifer Carey
Natalie Archambault
The Cadmus Group, Inc.
Steve Coffey
Dan Line
NCSU Water Quality Group
George Pesacreta
Ecological Consultants
Contract Number COI-51366
August 1996
16
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
STUDY SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES
The Orange Water and Sewer Authority(OWASA)owns and operates the Cane Creek Reservoir as a water
supply for residents of the towns of Chapel Hill and Carrboro, and portions of Orange County, North
Carolina. OWASA commissioned the Cane Creek Watershed study to aid in developing management plans
to protect the quality of the water supply into the next century(see Figure E-1 for a map of the study area).
Given the current predominance of agricultural and forested land in the watershed, proper management of
those land use activities n now the greatest concern for protection of the water supply. Over time, however,
the character of land use is projected to shift to residential, presenting new challenges to protecting the water
supply.
Restrictions on either agricultural or land development activities to manage watershed impacts can impose
burdens on local resided and land owners. A viable management plan to protect the water supply needs to
address potential adverse water quality impacts while also avoiding imposition of unnecessary burdens on either
residents or OWASA rate payers.
To meet these multiple objectives,the scope of work for this study was developed with substantial input from
a broad-based advisory committee of local elected officials, OWASA Board members and customers,
watershed property owners,and technical experts. In June 1995, OWASA selected The Cadmus Group, Inc.
to conduct the study. The original scope of work contained eleven tasks including collection and evaluation of
existing reservoir and watershed data,development and application of modeling tools for prediction of future
water quality in Cane Creek Reservoir under alternative management scenarios, and recommendation of a
watershed protection plan. The latter task was modified, however, because OWASA and the advisory
committee agreed that several of the feasible management alternatives under consideration warrant review and
input from a larger segment of the community before selection of a final plan of action. The purpose of this
report, therefore, is to provides a technical basis for the selection of a final management plan, and to
communicate the study finding to date and the alternative management scenarios under consideration.
OWASA's primary goal is expressed as follows:
Mamtge the Cane Creak Reservoir to meet or exceed all applicable state and federal standards and to '
ensure its excellent water quality and long term viability as a public water supply resource.
E-1
e
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Figure E-1. Cane Creels Reservoir 17
Region Map
Cane Creek Watershed Study Area
ORANGE
COUNTY
NEUSE
RIVER
BASIN
Affillsbomughl
r.
ALAMANCE
COUNTY
;::.. DURHAM
. .`` ' COUNTY
CANE CREEK
WATERSHED
UPPER Chawl Hill
CAPE FEAR JC=rboro
Miles RIVER
BASIN
0 5 ��-•
CHATHAM UNIVERSITY LAKE
COUNTY WATERSHED
E-?
EXECUr VE SUMMARY 18
With input from the advisory committee, OWASA identified the following management objectives and
levels of relative emphasis for both water quality and non-water quality issues:
Water Quality-Related Objectives
1. Minimize risks to public health (Emphasis: Most Important)
2. Minimize loss of reservoir storage capacity due to sedimentation (Emphasis: More Important)
3. Minimize aesthetically objectionable taste, odor, and color problems in tapwater(Emphasis: More
Important)
4. Maintain desirable quality for recreational and aesthetic enjoyment (Emphasis: Important)
Non-Water Quality Objectives
5. Minimize impacts on County residents who are not OWASA customers (Emphasis: Most/More
Important)
6. Minimize rate increases to OWASA customers (Emphasis: Important)
SUMMARY OF TmuacAL APPROACH
Cadmus organized the study to address three general management areas: the watershed, the reservoir, and
the water supply treatment and delivery system(Figure E-2). These components correspond to the concept
of multiple barriers for water supply protection, with watershed(or source)protection providing the first
line of defense,the reservoir providing an intermediate level,and the treatment plant providing the last line
of defense. Minimizing risk cost-effectively may require using all forms of protection.
Study Focuses on Three Levels
WATERSHED RESERVOIR WATER SU:P:KY
RunoKSources Wal-Qwlifr Qualityand
Ma dneM andlndalce T_n_M
Meawwes Man6ement Requirownts
Water Quality Relationships
WATER
Y
tai
Sepok STsl�wa
Apkvll— Treatment
ithdrawa
WATERSHED
RESERVOIR
Figure E-2. Study Focus Levels
E-3
I
19
ExEcumvE SUMMARY
Cadmus also designed the study to address the multiple objectives outlined by the advisory committee. A
"scenario based" decimn approach was used, whereby meaningful indicators were developed to link
management objectives with options, and provide a shorthand for communicating the potential effects of
management decisions on attaining those objectives. The advisory committee and OWASA planning staff were
involved bout the study,providing feedback on the feasibility and preferences for management options.
The study was conducted in five phases:
1. Coordination and collection of data
2. Analysis of existing data
3. Refinement of decision approach
4. Development and evaluation of management scenarios
5. Documentation of findings and recommendations to date
Watershed contaminant delivery and reservoir water quality models were calibrated and applied to support
phases 2 through 4. A spreadsheet modeling tool oriented for continued planning and management decision
support was also developed and used to aid in the evaluation of management scenarios.
STUDY FmiNGS AND CONCLUSIONS TO DATE
From the information gathered and analyzed during this study, conclusions were drawn in five key areas that
should form the foundation for completing a management plan for the Cane Creek Reservoir and Watershed.
(1) Existing Reservoir Water Quality
Current water quality is generally acceptable and in compliance with applicable water quality standards, but
is not pristine. As with University Lake and other Piedmont reservoirs, Cane Creek Reservoir receives large
loads of nutrients that contribute to a range of conditions that have the potential to compromise both public
health and aesthetic objectives(Chapter 2). Potential changes in land use may increase the threat of excessive
nutrient loading.
(2) Current Protection Measures
Modeling analyses indicate that development regulations and practices currently in place are not sufficient to
prevent future water quality deterioration from anticipated new residential development. Although agricultural
sources in the watershed currently contribute substantial contaminant loads to the reservoir, continued
implementation of best management practices for dairy operations under time tables specified by North
Carolina Administrative Code 15A NCAC 2H .0200 appear adequate to protect the reservoir from further
degradation attributable to agricultural sources(Chapter 4).
E-4
20
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
(3) Greatest Risk
Highest risks to attaining water quality management objectives for the reservoir are presented by:
• Increased algal blooms associated with nutrient loading from future development. Summer algal blooms
are already frequent in Cane Creek Reservoir. Most blooms are dominated by blue-green algae, including
species associated with taste/odor problems and potential production of algal toxins. Increased residential
development could worsen the problem(Figure E-3).
80 40%
=L 60
r.
30% o
-,.
u
� 40 o
-S 20/o
o
� o
20 10%
U c�
w
0 /0
Undeveloped Cmmt Conditions /•25 Buildout FWl Buildout
.P Concentration Algal Bloom Frequency
Figure E-3. Projected Eutrophication Impacts under Current Protection Measures
• High manganese cons caused by naturally occurring lake conditions, which result in undesirable
aesthetic conditions in finished water. The intake raw water will contain problematic concentrations of
manganese when OWASA must draw water from below the depth of the thermocline (a temperature
barrier that separates surface from bottom waters in the summer)and occasionally at times when anoxic
(devoid of oxygen).bottom water is mixed into the surface water.
• Total organic cwbon levels,expected to remain high in the raw water supply because decaying vegetation
and in-lake production are not amenable to control, which react to form harmful by-products during
disinfection steps in the water supply treatment and distribution system.
• Low dissolved oxygen concenamlon, reduced water clarity, and microbial pathogens also pose a moderate
risk to attaining water quality objectives(See Chapter 2).
E-5
1
21
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
(4) Management Options
No single management option can meet all six of the water quality and non-water quality objectives. OWASA
and the community must therefore consider scenarios that combine multiple forms of management(Chapter 3
and Appendix F).
• Watershed Management. Achieving water quality objectives in Cane Creek Reservoir is best addressed
through management actions in the watershed and tributary arms of the lake. Four alternative
management approaches or scenarios, reviewed and refined by the Advisory Committee, are proposed
for Mitlier review and evaluation.by the OWASA Board and community(See Table lil). The scenarios
include different combinations of zoning; open-space preservation; buffer requirements; residential,
agricultural, and forestry best management practices, land acquisition, and in-lake management options
which are detailed in Exhibit E-1 at the end of the Executive Summary. Although each scenario is
projected to meet water quality objectives, they differ in key areas for consideration, including political
feasibility,certainty of effectiveness,potential for unintended adverse consequences, and ability to develop
additional or retrofit solutions when unexpected conditions occur. Further input on community preferences
and concerns should therefore be gathered and considered before deciding on a specific alternative
(Chapter 4).
Table E-1. Preferred Management Scenarios for Further Review
Additional Best OWASA
Orange Co. Opeo-space Management Aeon In-Lake
Managentent Scenario zening PreaerTadm Butlers Practices (aces) Options
2. Tributary Detention Ponds 2-acre Voluntary current Dairies 86 4 tributary
detention
4a. Open Space 2-a<ze Residential,forestry, 1 tributary
Preservation and BMPa 5/2 Nearshore VOA agriculture,dairies 632 detention
5. Large Lot Zoning and 5/2 Voluntary current Forestry, 1265 None
6. Mandatory Cluster 2acm Mandatory I Current Residentiai,dairies 1377 2 tributary
Devdopllt ClnRering detention
• In-lake Management. Several in-lake management options were evaluated for addressing key
risks, but were rejected because of high cost and uncertainty in effectiveness. These options
included mechanical destratification,hypohmnetic aeration, alum and copper sulfate applications,
and biomanipulation(changing biological community structure). Further evaluation of
constructing impoutldments(large detention ponds) in one or more of the tributary arms of the lake
to enhance removal of sediments and contaminants prior to reaching the intake area is
recommended,however, as part of the four watershed management scenarios(Chapter 4 and
Appendix F).
• Water Supply Treatment. Attempting to address degradation of the raw water supply solely through
enhanced processes at the treatment plant will not provide the desired level of assurance for providing
high quality drinking water. Certain problems in raw water supply quality (e.g., periodic low levels
of dissolved oxygen,high levels of iron and manganese, and high levels of total organic carbon) are,
however, expected to continue even with the most restrictive watershed management options under
E-6
22
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ,
consideration. Further evaluation of additional cost-effective treatment techniques, such as pre-
oxidation with chlorine dioxide, is recommended(Chapter 4 and Appendix E).
• Other Managenent Considerations.
- Fish Population Management. The quantity and size of game fish(i.e., species popular with
fishermen)in the reservoir will respond positively to improvements in the reservoir's water
quality. There are, however, additional management actions, independent of water supply
water quality protection, which could be undertaken to improve the game fish populations.
Further monitoring of fish populations and habitat conditions(particularly dissolved oxygen
concentrations in the shallow,near-shore areas) is recommended, followed by coordination
with the NC Wildlife Resources Commission to refine fishing limits at the reservoir(Chapter
4).
- Microbial Pathogen Managenent. No instances of disease associated with key pathogens of
concern, Cryptospon&=and Giardia, have been associated with the OWASA water supply.
Monitoring information is limited,however, and actual presence of these pathogens in the
reservoir is uncertain. Cryptosporidium remains a concern in the Cane Creek Watershed
because it is associated with infected animals, particularly cows and beavers. Several factors,
including watershed land management practices, physical characteristics of the reservoir, and
treatment system operations used by OWASA mitigate the risk. Maintaining these barriers is
important, along with improving real-time monitoring of particulate matter in finished water as
an early indicator of potential problems(Chapter 4).
- Nuisance Aquatic Weed Management. Aquatic weeds(macrophytes)have caused problems in
a number of local water sources,but are not currently a problem in Cane Creek Reservoir.
Preventing their introduction, however, requires continued vigilance. OWASA should
maintain its prohibition of traiilered boats and continue inspection of allowed small boats and
electric motors prior to launching. It is also recommended that OWASA establish a more
formal surveillance program to locate and control localized outbreaks before they become
threats to meeting management objectives(Chapter 4).
(5) Management Selection
Several management approaches have been identified which can meet the overall water quality goal established
by OWASA. Each alternative, however, has significantly different implications for other goals such as
minimizing impacts m waetsheci residents and OWASA customers. Completing a watershed management plan
that meets all objectivea optimally can be accomplished only with additional public outreach and input.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COMPLETING A WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN
To the extent possible, OWASA wants the Cane Creek Reservoir watershed management plan to be shaped,
understood, and supported by the affected community. This report describes a number of alternative
protection strategies to meet water quality management objectives. There is more work to be done, however,
before a complete plan that meets all management objectives, including non-water quality objectives, is ready
for implementation.
E-7
23
EXECUTNE SUMMARY
NEXT STEPS FOR PLAN DEVELOPMENT
Several steps are needed to complete development of a watershed management plan for the Cane Creek
Reservoir that optimally achieves the objectives identified by the Advisory Committee.
Public Review
OWASA has indicated that its next step will be to present the results of this study—the conclusions drawn to
date and the management scenarios recommended for further consideration—in one or more community
forums to raise public awareness and obtain community input before deciding on an optimal plan of action.
Cadmus recommends following large group public presentations with moderated small group discussions to
allow for more dialogue and input. Consensus may not be readily achievable, and it will be important for
OWASA to seek common ground among stakeholders and refine proposed management options accordingly
to increase public support, while still maintaining the water quality objectives.
Orange County Impact Analysis
As the preferred scenarios are narrowed down to those that are technically sound and most widely supported,
it will be important for OWASA to work closely with local county planners to analyze the scenarios for
secondary impacts on local development patterns, housing costs, and associated effects on tax revenues,
demand for public services, and so forth.
OWASA Bawd Decisions
Following public review and local govt impact analysis, the OWASA Board of Directors is expected
to select a preferred plan of action and then work with other entities to implement A. Options include choosing
one of the currently defined scenarios,refining one of these scenarios, or recommending further analysis to
address any important information gaps that may have arisen during the review process. When making their
selection, we recommend that OWASA staff continue to guide the Board through the use of decision criteria
(feasibility, certainty, potential for unintended adverse consequences, and ability to develop additional or
retrofit solutions when unexpected conditions occur). It should be noted that some of the currently defined
scenarios contain options that require decisions by others(e.g., zoning decisions are under the authority of the
Orange County Commissioners), and therefore OWASA plans must be adaptable to those decisions.
Documentation
Documenting the plan,of action is important for providing a long-term reference, and communicating
implementation details. A strong plan will include specifics regarding actions and their timing, roles and
responsibilities for implementation, financing, and indicators to measure progress in meeting objectives.
LONG-TERM PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
Watershed management efforts for the Cane Creek Reservoir will not end with the adoption of a plan.
Watershed management is a dynamic process that requires responses to changing conditions, goals, priorities,
funding,and other factors. As a part of completing the written plan, therefore, OWASA and the community
should consider three long-term actions:
E-8
24
ExEcumvE SummARy
Education and Outreach
One of the first steps to implementing a water supply protection plan is to ensure that parties responsible for
implementation understand the plan objectives and what each party needs to do. Cadmus recommends that
OWASA use public meetings and ongoing forums (e.g., Soil and Water Conservation District Board of
Supervisors meetings)to raise public awareness of the final plan and seek support for implementation.
Monitoring Implementation and Evaluating Performance
Neither complete buildout of the watershed nor full implementation of the protection plan is likely to occur
immediately following plan adoptiom It will be important for OWASA to continue to monitor changes in land
use/land cover within the watershed as well as water quality in the reservoir and finished water supply.
Additionally, the timing of implementation actions should be documented where construction of control or
treatment structures is used, or new management operations are employed on a large scale, to be able to
analyze water quality responses to those management actions over time. Key water quality indicators to
continue monitoring include:
1. Chlorophyll-a as indicator for algal bloom occurrence
2. Blue-Green Algae species identification as indicator of algal toxin potential
3. Total Phosphorus and Total Nurogen as indicators for evaluating eutrophication trends
4. Manganese to guide treatment operation adjustments to avoid aesthetic problems in finished water
S. Total Organic Carbon to guide treatment operation adjustments to avoid creating unacceptable levels of
disinfection by-products in finished water
6. Dissolved Oxygen to guide treatment operation adjustments and as an indicator of lake ecosystem health
7. Secchi Depth as a measure of water clarity and an indicator of in-lake conditions for aesthetic and
recreational enjoyment
8. Fecal streptoca and Clostridium perilhogens should be considered for use as surrogates for microbial
pathogen risk
Additionally,regular strategic monitoring in watershed tributaries should be continued at a minimum of three
stations for basic water chemistry, nutrients, and biological parameters. This will provide a basis to monitor
water quality response to changes in land use in the watershed and track effectiveness of management
practices. To maintain periodic analyses of toxins in the raw water supply, Cadmus recommends continued
raw water monitoring such as currently conducted in the Triangle Area Water Supply Monitoring Project.
OWASA's continued participation in the American Water Works Association Research Foundation study for
monitoring presence of algal toxins in water supplies is also recommended.
PERIODIC PLAN UPDATE
Watershed management should not be considered a one-time planning event. Conditions, concerns, priorities,
management goals, and implementation capabilities all change over time, and a strong watershed management
approach is one that can adapt accordingly. Increasingly, governments and organizations involved in
watershed management are establishing frameworks that support ongoing management through a cycle of
activities that ensure periodic update of watershed assessments, management objectives and priorities, and
E-9
25
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
strategic implementation plans. OWASA has already developed(or is in the process of developing through
this study)many of the components of a watershed management framework:
1. A strategic monitoring program
2. Assessment capabilities including modeling tools developed through this study
3. A stakeholder advisory group to assist in establishing management objectives, priorities, and
implementation plans
4. A decision approach process for evaluating, ranking, and selecting management options
5. A documentation process that communicates management goals, objectives, plans, roles and
responsibilities, and timelines
6. An outreach program to raise public awareness of Cane Creek Reservoir water quality and relationship
to human activities in the watershed, and to enlist public support and participation for maintaining a high
quality water resource
Cadmus recommends building on this foundation by implementing a watershed management cycle that
institutionalizes use of these components and ensures continuity, consistency, cost-effectiveness, technical
defensibility, and public support(Figure E-4).
Many watershed frameworks are based
on a five-year cycle, which often 1.Maintain public awareness of watershed conditions and
corresponds well with public and private water supply protection plan status.
strategic planning time horizons. It 2.Update management goals and objectives
should also be noted that the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality Data Collectioii
(DWQ) administers a five-year I Develop and implement strategic data collection plans.
management cycle for the Cape Fear 4.Compile and maintain detailed information and data.
River Basin in which the Cane Creek
watershed lies. Thus, adopting a five-
year management cycle for the Cane 5.Analyze and evaluate information and data.
Creek watershed would provide an 6.Reassess where management efforts are needed.
opporamity to better coordinate activi ties
between OWASA and DWQ and to
leverage resources. If OWASA decides Update Protectim Plan
to establish a management cycle, it may 7.Refine management strategies.
wish to further analyze additional factors 8.Update water supply protection plan.
(such as capital improvement planning)
before making a final decision on cycle Implemeiitatim
length. 9.Implement protection action plan.
10.Monitor progress toward goals and objectives.
1 4-
Figure E4 Recommended Cane Creek Watershed
Management Cycle
E-10
26
Exhibit E-1. Summary of Management Scenarios for Further Public Consideration
Scenario l: Tributary Detention
This scenario emphasizes OWASA in-take(or near-lake)efforts to protect water quality through the
construction of sub-watershed scale tributary detention facilities near the mouths of the major
tributaries(ranging in size from 10-43 acres). Management options on the watershed are
minimized,resulting in minimal burden on watershed landowners.
Zoning: Currently zoned for 2-acre minimum lots in Orange Co., I acre in Alamance
Open-Space Voluntary open-space preservation under current ordinance,resulting in a net
Preservation: 10%preservation of existing rural land uses in Orange County and 6%in
Alamance County.
Buffers: Current requirements.
BMPs: Current practices only,except that animal operation BMPs required by state
regulations are assumed to be in place.
Current OWASA land purchase funds plus additional funds,as required,are
Purchase/Easement: diverted to the cost of acquiring sites and constructing tributary detention
facilities. No additional land is acquired beyond that needed for construction
of tributary sub-impoundments,due to the high cost of these facilities.
Regional sub-impoundments to trap pollutant loads are constructed near the
mouth of four of the five major tributaries(Caterpillar Creek,Watery Fork,
In-Lake Options: Cane Creek,Turkey Hill Creek). No detention facility is planned for Toms
Creek because of construction costs and difficulties associated with currently
existing Apple Mill Pond,which does not provide any discernable water
quality benefits.
Scenario 4a: 10%Preservation of Open Space Combined with Additional BMPs
This scenario combines planned open-space preservation with relatively little restriction on use of
the remaining land. Current 2-acre zoning would be maintained,except in the central area nearest
the lake. To compensate for the increased pollution load generated by 2-acre development,
structural stormwater controls for new development are included in the mix of BMPs. It is also
assumed that Alamance Co.will continue to allow development under the state's minimum
watershed protection rules. This scenario includes voluntary open-space preservation and one
tributary detention basin on Caterpillar Creek.
Zoned for residential development at 2 acres in Orange Co.,with zoning of
Zoning 5 acres with 2-acre option in nearshore critical area,and 1 acre in Alamance
Co.on buildable areas.
Buffers: Current requirements.
Open-Space Voluntary open-space preservation resulting in a net 10%preservation of
Preservation: existing rural land uses in Orange County and 6%in Alamance County.
E-11
• Exhibit E-1. Summary of Management Scenarios for Further Public Consideration 27
(Continued)
An array of BMPs is assumed for agricultural,forestry,and residential
development. Agricultural BMPs currently in place are assumed to continue,
while animal operation BMPs are expected to improve somewhat through
implementation of required management plans and additional
recommendations. It is assumed that current Forestry Practice Guidelines are
adhered to more because of increased outreach and education sponsored by
BMPs: OWASA. This will result in reduced load from land disturbed by timber
harvest. Residential BMPs focus on stormwater control via regional-scale
(average area controlled of about 200 acres)detention ponds for
developments with zoned lot size of two acres,with maintenance assumed by
a public agency,while land acquisition cost for the detention ponds is
provided by development impact fees. These stormwater controls are
instituted only for areas of concentrated 2-acre development.
Purchase/Easement: OWASA purchase and acquisition continues for 10 years from present at
current rates of funding amounting to approximately 630 additional acres.
In-Lake Options: OWASA construction of a tributary detention basin on Caterpillar Creek -
(only)to reduce total nutrient and sediment load reaching the reservoir.
Scenario 5: Preservation of Open Space Combined with Large-Lot Zoning and BMPs
This scenario focuses management on large lot 5-acre zoning(within Orange Co.).
Assumes all Orange Co.portions of the watershed have 5-acre zoning with
Zoning: 2-acre options similar to those in the University Lake Watershed. Continued
1-acre zoning is assumed for Alamance Co.
Open-Space Voluntary open-space preservation resulting in a net 101/6 preservation of
Preservation: existing rural land uses in Orange County and 6%in Alamance County.
Buffers: Current requirements.
BMPs are included for agriculture and forestry(as in Scenario 4), but
BMPs: no additional BMPs are required for residential land uses, due to lack
of efficiency at larger lot size.
Purchase/Easement: OWASA purchase and easement acquisition efforts are assumed to
continue at the present rate of appropriation for 20 years from present.
In-Lake Options None.
Scenario 6: Mandatory Cluster Development
In this scenario, no down-zoning is required in Orange Co., yet substantial open-space
preservation is achieved by requiring all new developments to follow cluster development
patterns. Density is limited by the availability of suitable sites for septic drain fields on a
site specific basis. To achieve water quality goals, the cluster approach is combined with
two other major management options: (1)construction of two tributary detention facilities,
one on Caterpillar Creek, draining most of the Alamance Co. area, and another on Watery
Fork, where the cost effectiveness of a detention facility appears high; and(2) increased
OWASA acquisition of property or conservation easements.
E-12
Exhibit E-1. Summary of Management Scenarios for Further Public Consideration
(Continued) 28
1-acre zoning in Alamance Co.,2-acre residential zoning in Orange Co.,with
Zoning. a requirement for mandatory clustering in developments subject to the
subdivision process. Houses would be clustered primarily on 1-acre lots.
Open-space preservation is achieved in Orange Co.through a mandatory
clustering requirement under the currently zoned density through a
combination of smaller lots and open space. For 2-acre zoning,clustering on
1-acre lots(sufficient for septic drain fields)results in a net of 50%
preservation in rural uses of a developable tract. On a site-by-site basis,
Open-Space clustering on lots smaller than 1-acre with nondischarging community
Preservation: wastewater systems maintained by OWASA might be allowed(see below),
resulting in a greater percentage of open-space preservation. The open-space
preservation program is assumed to be adopted within Orange Co.only,and,
because mandatory clustering is required,it is assumed that additional
voluntary open-space preservation will be negligible. As in other scenarios,
the open space which is preserved is assumed to reflect the current
proportions of forest and agricultural land uses in the watershed. --
Buffers: Current minimum requirements remain in place,but clustering can be used to
maximize protection of riparian corridors and other sensitive areas.
Within cluster developments,a structural BMP(e.g.,wet detention basin)is
assumed to be present to serve the developed portion of the site. This would
be paid for by the developer. The purpose of this BMP is primarily to control
BMPs: first-flush washoff of pollutants from impervious areas,rather than provide
effective sediment trapping,but a minor reduction in annual delivery of
nutrients is also expected. Agricultural lands are assumed to follow current
practices only,except that required animal operation BMPs are assumed to be
in place.
For this scenario,OWASA purchase/easement efforts place a higher
emphasis on obtaining conservation easements. This higher participation in
easements is achieved in part by assuming that a higher price will be offered
Purchase/Easement: for easements than in other scenarios. It is also possible that OWASA may
effectively create easements by purchasing land,then reselling it with deeded
easements. The analysis of this scenario assumes 413 acres of fee simple
purchase and 964 acres of conservation easement,for a total of 1377 acres
(see footnote).
The in-lake options for this scenario include OWASA construction of a
In-Lake Opti osa: tributary detention basin on Caterpillar Creek and a detention basin on Water
Fork(20 years from now)to reduce total nutrient and sediment load reaching
the reservoir.
Cluster development under this scenario may include alternatives for
community wastewater systems(non-discharging)on a site-by-site basis,
Other: with the condition of a strong OWASA involvement in the planning/design
process and OWASA assumption of operation and maintenance. This option
is assumed to apply to a relatively small portion of the total number of units
in the watershed.
E-13
Exhibit E-1. Summary of Management Scenarios for Further Public Consideration
(Continued) 29
Footnote: Although this.approach to acquiring easements is what OWASA prefers,it was not used
as the basis for assumptions in the other scenarios. Clarification of this preference
occured after analyses for scenarios 1-5 had already been performed. However,this
should not prevent OWASA from using the prefered easement acquisition method with
any management scenario. The corresponding increases in land covered by easements
will only serve to enhance protection of the water supply and its quality.
E-14
Appendix C: Additional Comments 30
All members of the Cane Creek Watershed Advisory Committee were invited to submit individual
comments that might differ from those expressed in an earlier draft of these June 26 Provisional
Recommendations. Comments from two members are attached in this Appendix, as is a letter from the
Chair of Orange County's Bingham Township Advisory Council.
Several Committee members and members of the general public attended the June 12, 1997 OWASA
Board of Directors meeting when that earlier draft was discussed. This agenda item had been publicized
in special newspaper ads prior to the meeting and had been mentioned in local news stories. Verbal
comments of visitors to the June 12 Board meeting are summarized in this Appendix.
C-1
31
[Received via Email]
Date: 6/3/97 5:25 PM
Priority: Normal
TO: Ed Holland
Subject: Report
---------------------------- Message Contents -------------------------------
Ed,
My only comment concerns the charge to the Committee. I continue to
believe that the Committee was not charged to develop a "single preferred
strategy". At the least, that was not the charge I understood when I
joined the group. If the charge was changed since the January 13, 1994
Board Resolution, I missed it. I stated this at the meeting in Orange
Grove last summer. Therefore I .cannot endorse the report to the extent
it suggests a preferred option. Thanks for keeping me informed and for
all your help to the Committee.
Pat Crawford
C-3
FROM D HUNTERiP DORR PHONE NO. 9199670683 Jun. 06 1997 08:19AM POI
32
TO: OWASA Board of Directors
FROM: Dolly Hunter
DATE: June 5, 1997
SUBJECT: Recommendation for Protecting Cane Meek Water Supply
1. In order for clustering to be achievable in rural Orange County,it requires a maximum
of 20%open space with a minimum lot size of 1 acre.Land is the greatest expense in
rural developments while infrastructure(water/sewer, roads)is the greatest expense in
urban areas. Urban developments recoup costs with higher density. Rural
developments, without water/sewer,must have a minimum 1 acre lot size. Shorter
roads can cut costs but with 200' being a generous length of road frontage for a 1 acre
lot,at$30 a linear foot,the saving of$6,000 does not make up for the loss of a
$20,000 1 acre lot.If clustering is desirable it should be doable otherwise it is
downzoning.
2. If the 5 &2 zoning with cluster configuration is enacted,an accurate calculation should
be made of the parcels in the watershed with acreage over 12 acres in sire. (A recent
comment has been made that 25%of all existing parcels are over 12 acres in size). If an
owner of one of those parcels decides to subdivide at any time after the date of
downzoning enactment,an analysis should be made of the development potential(with
soil,slope etc.constraints)at the 2 acre minimum zoning versus the 5 &2/cluster
zoning.The difference in values should be compensated to that landowner by OWASA
as a purchase of development rights held in perpetuity,or in a Land Bank for future
transfer or for a TDR program with sufficient receiving areas designated to absorb such
transfers.
3. It is fundamentally unfair to make a certain segment of the population pay for the
benefits of another.Fair compensation is the honorable and equitable thing to do.
C-4
33
� � 150 V
D
May 30, 1997 JUN 3 1997
Barry Jacobs
Chair, OWASA Board of Directors
PO Box 366
Carrboro, NC 27510
Dear Barry:
On May,8, the Bingham TAC received a report on the recommendations
forthcoming from the Cane Creek Watershed Advisory Committee. The
TAC commends this Committee for its long and diligent work, but feels it
must respond to a few of the recommendations. As township residents, the
TAC hears regularly from citizens about this issue, and we are obliged to
pass along their (and our) concerns.
• It appears that the comments and input from Bingham residents have not
been given serious mention in the report. On November 20 and
December 11, 1996, Bingham residents expressed to committee
members and OWASA staff their feelings that additional hardship with
no benefits seemed to be on the horizon for Bingham residents. The vast
majority of residents at these two meetings expressed their displeasure
with large-lot zoning and mandatory cluster approaches - both verbally
and in the "straw-poll" held at the end of the meeting.
• I was disheartened to see these thoughts listed in the report as issues
"perceived by many watershed property owners," and relegated to the
back pages of the report. To Bingham residents, the implications of
additional land use controls with no benefits for those forced to bear
these measures are much more than perceptions - they are very real.
Another perception that is very real to us is the lack of an elementary
school in Bingham for our 585 students. The idea of an elementary
school site is one that residents have listed as a need for years, and the
Orange County Board of Education has been made aware of this. The
c-s
38
ITEM 7
AGENDA ITEM.
• RECEIPT OF COMMENTS FROM CARRBORO AND CHAPEL HILL REGARDING
CANE CREEK WATER SUPPLY RECOMMENDATIONS
PURPOSE
• To receive watershed protection comments solicited from Carrboro and Chapel Hill.
B�CKG OUND
• On June 26, 1997 the Board of Directors endorsed Provisional Recommendations for
Protecting the Cane Creek Water Supply. It was the Board's intent to solicit comments
and/or endorsements from Carrboro and Chapel Hill and then consider further revisions
that might be suggested before presenting a final package to the Orange County
Commissioners.
• Barry Jacobs and Alan Rum presented the Provisional Recommendations in person to
the Chapel Hill Town Council and Carrboro Board of Aldermen on August 25 and 26.
Both bodies have considered the recommendations and responded to OWASA as
requested.
• Comments from both Cantoro and Chapel Hill are supportive,but offer additional points
of emphasis for OWASA and the County Commissioners. These will be incorporated as
appropriate into Final Recommendations to be prepared for Board consideration on
October 23.
• A schedule of the overall County approval process,which will likely take until August,
1998,is attached as information.
ACTION NEEDED
Receive the comments submitted by Cantoro and Chapel Hill. Discuss as needed.
STAFF REC0101INDAXION
• Staff recommends that the Board receive the comments and incorporate them as
appropriate into Final RecomMendationt to be considered on October 23.
October 9, 1997
7.1
zoo Q�
VGUO tact goo 8T8 rYd Co:
ZT-zw 18/tiT/OT
a 39
Cane Creek Water Supply Protection
Approval Process
June 26, 1997: OWASA Board Adopts Provisional Recommendations and
Transmits to Carrboro,Chapel Hill,and Orange County
Aug 25-26, 1997: OWASA Presentations to Chapel Hill and Carrboro
Elected Boards
Oct 3, 1997: Carrboro and Chapel Hill Comments Due at OWASA
Oct 9, 1997: OWASA Board Receives Carrboro and Chapel Hill
Comments
Oct 21, 1997: OWASA Presentation to Orange County Commissioners
(Informational Only)
Oct 23, 1997: OWASA Board Adopts Final Recommendations and
Transmits Formally to Carrboro,Chapel Hill,and County
Oct-Nov 1997: Orange County Prepares Staff Analysis
Dee 1997: County Staff Presents Report to Commissioners
Jan 1998: County Conducts Public Meeting(s)in Bingham Township
Feb 1998 County Staff Prepares Draft Ordinance Changes
Mar-Apr 1998: County Planning Board and Ordinance Review Committee
Review Changes
May 26, 1998: Proposed Changes Presented at Joint Public Hearing
June 1998 County Planning Board Prepares Recommendations to
Commissioners
Aug 1998: Board of Commissioners Acts on Ordinance Changes
7.3
too VSVA0 69tif 996 Ole YV3 bO:Zj 31 / T/OT
40
'OWN OF CHAPEL HILL 09 9 697
3W 1**M COW~ON=
CHAlat.UIJ. M MM CAROMA 17316
7 �•ll1�
October, 1997
Berry Jwobs,Chair
Orange Water and Sewer Authority
400 Janes Ferry Road
Carrboro,NC 27510
Dear Mr.Jacobs:
On September 22,the Town Council adopted the enclosed resolution which primarily expresses
our general concurrence with the provisional recommendations submitted by the OWASA Board
Of Directors.
The Council included im the resolution last mght a comment that the 5 minimum lot size standard
may be prefmble to fleadble development fi m a water protection perspective
In add1C'm tha Council sated its support for rigorous enforcement by the County of the
raqudr nab to teat whether land in a flexible development percolates adequately for subsurhce
wwawow systems,and for regt to reserve areas for lltt m drainulds if needed.
On bebalf of the Council,I request that you provide a copy of the rewtnmendations when your
respective boards adopt them in the future regarding Cane Creels water quality protection
The Council is interested in seeing these recornn endations and may amend or add to the
comments adopted tact night.
Finally,I hope that we could work together in making a joint statement to the Orange and
Alamanc a County Boards of Commissioners in the future. I am optimistic that there will be
points of agreement among our respective boards so that we can submit a joint statement.
Please feel free to call me if there is any need.
Sincerely,
°S!-i'„
Rosemary h. Wal rf
Mayor
cc: Council Members
enclosure:
C : *BOftD OF D I VECTORS
ED l-:*Ekw W
ED HoL.LA-Nn
C- 10
9001A MAO t9tt 996 8TO YVJ SO:;T 3JU ZG/tT/Uf-
A
41
DRAFT OF RESOLUTION ADOPTED i3y Th3E CHAPEL SII.L TOWN COUNCIL
ON SEPTEMBER 22,1997: SUWZCT TO REVISION BY TEE TOWN COUNCIL
A RESOLUTION REGARDING PROTECTING THE QUALITY OF WATER
IN THE CANE CREEK RESERVOIR(97-9-22AR 9)
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapd Hill that the Council adopts the
fovovvnW comments on protecting the quality of water w the Cam Creek reservoir, wt ich is the
con+uattws largest water supply source:
• The Council generally concurs with the provisional recommendations presented to the Council
by OWASA in August, 1997.
• The Council believes that the five-acre minimum may offer a lugher level of water quality
protection_
• The Council also requests that Orange County rigorously enforce regulations for reserve
field areas in the case of septic tank far'hures.
• The Council concurs that overall impervious surface limits should remain at six percent
for residewW development and twdve percent for non-residential developments.
• The Council authorizes the Mayor to submit this resolution to the Carrboro Board of
Aldermen and OWASA Board with a request to receive a copy of their recoaumeadations.
• The Council authorizes the Mayor to submit this resolution to the Orange and Alamaace
County Cortmrissiorr«s and/or to work with OWASA and Town of Cantoro representatives
to submit joint cotes to the County Boards of Comrnissioners rcflecsing points of
aff .
This the 22'A day of September, 1997.
C-II
L00� VSV40 19tH 996 M Iva 90:9t 311L Ls/-Fr/-6T-
42
TOWN OF CARRBORO
NORTH CAROLINA
• SEP 2 9 t997
September 24, 1997
Mr.Barry Jacobs,Chair
OWASA Board of Directors
P.O.Box 366
Canboro,N.C. 27510
Dear Barry:.
The Carrboro Board of Aldermen at its meeting on September 23, 1997 discussed
OWASA's provisional t+ecoxrmnecdaaons for protecting Cane Creels. The Board voted to
accept the report from OWASA with the following comments:
1. That OWASA make funds available to subsidize dairy farmers who are in either
water aupply waterslied(U w4w%y Lake or Cane Credo)and who have to meet Best
Management Practices,
2. That Creative Open Space zoning seems most appropriate and compatible with
efforts to preserve water quality and the goals of the County's Flexible Development
Ordinance.
3. The Tms&r of Development Rights program is attractive. Any program devised
should be constructed ted in coordination with similar efforts by the Orange County
Agricultural Districts Advisory Board and Economic Development Commission.
4. That existing 12-acre lots be allowed to subdivide into five two-acre tracts.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this very important document.
Sincerely,
Wt JAJ QL-
Michael R.Nelson
Mayor
C : Board of Vrccbr-s
Ed �<erw;n
Ed No lla�✓
An 7.4
301 WEOT MAIN ST49Ct CARR00R0. NC 27510 • 10191 942.05.1 • PAX 10193 900.7737 • F00 19191 990.7717
AN COUAL OPPORTIONITV E14PLOVEN
so0® MAO t9tt 296 6T8 %V3—''ZT 3A,L Ze/tT/OT